Mandelbrot: Supersampling vs Multisampling?

[panzerboy]

If I understand Kalles correctly the real question is averaging the iterations then colouring the pixel gives a noisier image than colouring the pixels then averaging.
A histogram of the mandelbrot iterations reveals how the iterations values are distributed.
A typical mandelbrot image has large areas of lower iterations, the interesting details are the higher iterations but they make up very few (<5%) of the pixels.
Getting an average iteration value for a 3x3 grid will often include one of these higher value iterations, skewing the average value.
The higher value iterations though sparse have wildly varying  values, think of how quickly the iterations climb near a mini-brot.
So the amount skewed by the higher value iterations will cause great variation in average value say one 3x3 grid has 8 locations of iteration value 1000 and 1 location of 2500, the next grid 8 of 1000 1 of 1300.
The average for the 1st grid is 1167 the next is 1033, 34 iteration values different, pointing to a possibly radically different colour in your palette index.
Consider the grids as colours the first grid has 8 pixels of grey R127,G127,B127 and one of black r0,g0,b0 the 2nd grid's different pixel might be yellow r255,g255,b0.
The average RGB compare as R113,G113,B113 and R141,G141,B113 a visible but subtle difference.
Not as jarring as a quick palette mapping might make of a 34 iteration difference?

[lycium]

So, if you don't think it is good to be fascinated by the new depths now possible with perturbation, what do you think is correct to be fascinated of then?
It seems to me that the point of your critic posts in this thread (and others about perturbation) is to assert your own marvelous program?

How did you come to this conclusion? If possible please refer to anything I've said about perturbation methods that has anything to do with chaotica, or that was not carefully qualified and justified. If you don't want to hear any negative points about perturbation methods then just say so - I don't see what my "marvelous program" has to do with this... you seemed at first to think Frax was my program.

I've been giving my personal opinion on this forum for about 7 years... and yes, I'll be the one to speak the apparently controversial view that no one has seen anything genuinely new in the Mandelbrot set for the last 30 years, which makes heuristic/approximate methods for even deeper zooming of limited value. If you can't address this statement without shooting the messenger then let's rather just leave it...

I.e. Chaotica, for which you want our money?
I am sorry, I will never buy it!
It must be frustrating when people choose freeware from enthusiasts instead of paying you money??

Not really??

[Kalles Fraktaler]

If I understand Kalles correctly the real question is averaging the iterations then colouring the pixel gives a noisier image than colouring the pixels then averaging.
A histogram of the mandelbrot iterations reveals how the iterations values are distributed.
A typical mandelbrot image has large areas of lower iterations, the interesting details are the higher iterations but they make up very few (<5%) of the pixels.
Getting an average iteration value for a 3x3 grid will often include one of these higher value iterations, skewing the average value.
The higher value iterations though sparse have wildly varying  values, think of how quickly the iterations climb near a mini-brot.
So the amount skewed by the higher value iterations will cause great variation in average value say one 3x3 grid has 8 locations of iteration value 1000 and 1 location of 2500, the next grid 8 of 1000 1 of 1300.
The average for the 1st grid is 1167 the next is 1033, 34 iteration values different, pointing to a possibly radically different colour in your palette index.
Consider the grids as colours the first grid has 8 pixels of grey R127,G127,B127 and one of black r0,g0,b0 the 2nd grid's different pixel might be yellow r255,g255,b0.
The average RGB compare as R113,G113,B113 and R141,G141,B113 a visible but subtle difference.
Not as jarring as a quick palette mapping might make of a 34 iteration difference?

Thanks for your interesting reply. Next time I have time to sit in front of my computer I will try median-value instead of average, that may work better

[Kalles Fraktaler]

Thanks for your interesting reply. Next time I have time to sit in front of my computer I will try median-value instead of average, that may work better

Nope, median did not improve much...

[youhn]

If only we could zoom to 1e100000000000000000000000, then fractal art would *really* be amazing and modern, and no new programs are needed for at least another hundred years!

lol @ sarcasm and bitterness


                 

The basics of storytelling also is the same for about a few thousand years. Just the details around it change a little. From spoken words at a campfire with some additional background-noise to 3D big screen theaters with surround sound, or even movements and watersplashing in some hybrid things you find in amusement parks. But I guess you're not wandering around those very often. Some people think the new 3D hype is *the thing*. I think I'm getting old and bitter on that subject, since I really do NOT believe it is here to stay. But storytelling is and so is the good OLD Mandelbrot fractal. We just search and watch the new exciting details around it.

What does color cycling has to do with AA?? Based on the functionality of Xaos, mdz, Mandelmachine it looks like separate things.

I think we should relate all things AA, resolution, DPI, size, viewing distance to OUR EYES. Let's forget both AA and color. Image snow (random noise) on a standard PC monitor. What resolution do we need to observe perfect grey, even when moving our head a little? I have the feeling I would be amazed on the resolution you need to see a perfect grey. This can be mapped back to minimum amount of AA in densen (high iteration climb) areas.

Back to AA. I don't really believe in tricks like rotating the "subpixels" or place them at some semi-random way. I do think that something should be done about the value (dark-light). When looking through the branches of a leaveless tree, you can almost close your eyes. For me, the light seems to win. The braches get smaller and seem to disappear. This is also true for distant small lights in the dark, they seem to grow when looking through the eyelashes.

                                       

[SeryZone]

So, I tried to supersample iteration data (*.KFB files) in 2 timesby simpliest algorithm. That's don't work. Yes, we averaging iteration values, but... We don't get supersampling! I can't average RGBA values, because I works with iteration data! How to get Supersampling for data???

[SeryZone]

If only we could zoom to 1e100000000000000000000000, then fractal art would *really* be amazing and modern, and no new programs are needed for at least another hundred years!

I want to say, that many users (include me) wants to see or set new zoom records. But deep of zoom not important, I think. Important: interesting zoom, like a phaumann's zoom 'Mandelbrot Zoom 999'. This video difficult to render now!!! I render it (not now, I suspended week ago) in 2560x1440 without AA in SFT. Here location, that I re-explored in fractal eXterme:

Code:

Real: -0.1542322727040157075505860940973994991842194236934782161574965617196536989431205112498794586796721102654663005026255062709929608580928976274423721660193212473041079523084242904047759779730802681028738568840261757348561230305349428801089000709917282587142578843159917259734301179668521665666749300428312958350901541822760632890894467745204795748598378916656358809046683471058902211363408878346261201316382723365304783767492851294432472704122066659461239347581874808631217827175919047642313975223850999903640294278972304747201285084285569686228172296904163070725512890197651817869054608985334078484055476927287415147835742021385457481273618177575339577025199974120071319146931414040084707482623578788216968471622263444364606381764852698995536618894820366640002770725980617324156799355799486333817836714356581364979857164015033738094139658957505980714875445896438185507664296149147784380961931162480627057773657831742518158906322668929244899662020105708254720307314922041277152284490573529442126453591112766218071560248196637849

Imaginary: -1.0299005834271893547949018759300334761718729712422608209507733528570147939794655189300049239357019173912447102219416155655922795940353769518888405320942654806534338589149195337510528033140090736250660086096597670201409680034845562312681181849168576259935503234927702679322307838272304792134251726243536317245347089819072121032235884476578438111286192810912717991171335757982887471722129416573612886654875141714607716951975727769889210977935895638953383319509391384488862233040580023574648361530138222927365880857413504218844612338292076063548743424055096069992298001864963723207039717479393785392289316895643281801109481075090304277462633229346403015940343115475388122356149154909906334848922198764486233138247389647476239213865285481386670094143532832564973160727216663372600252051349159176587706987123900946394600284913525522256251925478203758499935598491328071192381620515212759255251208256567797731720115762971866284580321877212462025294405113405534056525509983406414625572608919484366699586396757516864711179586754534591

Zomen: 2^3324 or 4.2044150990595335229503856911922*10^1000!!!

Iterations: 5,000,000

I want to make series 'Legendary' and render some really difficult LEGENDARY locations. And this location I add in this series in FIRST turn!